BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 244/2008 against C.C. 60/2006, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur
Between:
M/s. MLN Saree R Firm.
Rep. by its Managing Partner
M. C. Chandra Sekhar.
D.No. 4/99 (Old) 11/133 (New)
Thogata Street, Dharmavaram
Ananthapur Dist-515 001. *** Appellant/
Complainant
And
1) The Divisional Manager
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Anathapur
2) The Manager
State Bank of India
Dharmavaram, Ananthapur Dist. *** Respondents/
Ops 1 & 2.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. G.R. Joshi.
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. Ravi Shanker Jandyala (R1)
M/s. M. Narender Reddy (R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he has been running silk saree business under the name and style of M/s. M.L.N. Sarees . He has availed over draft facility with R2 bank. He has been paying the premium for the shopkeeper’s insurance policy taken by him from 8.10.2001 to 7.10.2002 for an amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs. While so on 27.9.2002 there was a fire accident in the shop bearing No. 4/99 (old) 11/333 (new) Thogota street, Dharmavaram. In the fire accident 142 sarees worth Rs. 3,41,250/- were burnt, and the up-stair building was partially damaged besides fridge, air- cooler etc. On a report the police registered a case in crime No. 174/2002. They found that the accident occurred due to burning of a candle kept on the cooler existing in the hall due to which there was electrocution. The said fact was also intimated to the bank. The claim was repudiated on 31.3.2004. In fact there was change of address known to the bank from D.No. 4/99 (old) to 11/333 (new). There was negligence on the part of the bank in not informing the change of address to the insurance company. Therefore assailing the repudiation he claimed Rs. 2,16,700/- with interest @ 24% p.a., together with compensation and costs.
3) The insurance company resisted the case. It alleged that it had issued the shopkeeper’s policy covering the premises situated at door No. D.No. 5/124, KPT street, Dharmavaram. It does not cover for the stocks kept in the shop bearing No. 4/99 (old), 11/333 (new), Thogota street, Dharmavaram. The fire accident took place in door No. 4/99 for which policy was not covered. There was no information as to the shift of premises from one place to another. The complaint was filed in order to make wrongful gain. There was abnormal delay in informing the police as well as to them. The claim was submitted on 18.1.2003. The police investigation discloses that it was a false case. In fact in the complaint to the fire officer he mentioned that 142 silk sarees worth Rs 3,41,250/- were burnt. The insurance company surveyor who visited the premises found that the sarees were not destroyed as alleged. They were either shifted to a safe place or stolen at the time of alleged incident. In fact there was no fire accident. It was a different house for which policy was given. The repudiation was just. The claim was barred by limitation. For the incident that said to have taken place on 27.9.2002 the complaint was filed in the year 2006. The complainant was not entitled to any of the amounts claimed, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) R2 bank equally resisted the case. However, it admitted that the complainant had availed over draft facility, and that it had deducted premium amount, and sent it to the insurance company which had issued the policy covering the period from 5.10.2001 to 4.10.2002 pertaining to silk sarees business under the name and style of M/s. M.L.N. Sarees ( R ) firm. The particulars of door number, shop number etc. as given by the complainant was intimated to the insurance company. The bank put the complainant to prove that the fire accident took place wherein 142 sarees were burnt and sustained loss. The complainant had intimated the police 8 days after the incident. The police after investigation found that the case was false. The complainant filed the complaint in order to make wrongful gain. The very burning of the candle kept on the cooler near the electric wires would itself show his negligence. The complaint was barred by limitation. The complainant was not entitled to any amount, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A27 marked while the insurance company filed the affidavit evidence of its Assistant Divisional Manager, and the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its Branch Manager and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of opposite parties.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the fire accident took place in the premises situated at D.No. 4/99, Thogota street, Dharmavaram, and that the policy was issued for the premises bearing D.No. 5/124, KPT street, Dharmavaram and therefore the policy is not covered by the terms of the policy and therefore dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts or law in correct perspective. While availing overdraft facility from R2 bank, he had furnished change of address viz., D.No. 4/99, Thogota street, Dharmavaram and that the bank had taken the policy wrongly and therefore there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank and that R2 bank having been admitted that the firm has been existing at D.No. 4/99, Thogota street, Dharmavaram the Dist. Forum ought to have allowed the claim.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant M/s., MLN Saree R Firm, Dharmavaram has taken shopkeeper’s insurance policy for the period covering from 8.10.2001 to 7.10.2002 for an amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs mentioning the premises that would cover the policy as D.No. 5/124, KPT Street, Dharmavaram. Basing on the proposal form Ex. B6 submitted by the complainant mentioning the very same address, Ex. B5 policy was issued. It has taken two more policies with which we have no concern viz., Specific Voyage Policies mentioning the address as D.No. 4/99, Thogata Street, Dharmavaram vide Exs. A17 & A18. The specific case of the complainant is that on 27.9.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. a fire accident had taken place in the shop situated at D.No. 4/99, (old) 11/333 (new) Thogata Street, Dharmavaram wherein 142 silk sarees were destroyed. When the same was informed to the fire officer on 28.9.2002 he has inspected and reiterated that 142 sarees worth Rs. 3,41,250/- were damaged besides fridge, and air cooler were gutted and issued fire service attendance certificate Ex. A16. He mentioned the cause of fire may be by electrical short-circuit. On submission of claim, the insurance company appointed a surveyor by name Sri E. Krishna Raj who after inspecting the premises on 29.9.2002 opined that there was no accident in the insured premises. He opined that “ The policy issued by the insurer is for shopkeeper’s policy. The policy mentions location of risk at D.No. 4/90, Thogota street, Dharmavaram, actual location of the risk is at D.No. 11/333 (old No. 4/99). The bankers have taken the policy and in their records also the location of the firm is mentioned as D.No. 4/90, Thogota Street, Dharmavaram. In fact D.No. 4/90, Thogota Street, Dharmavaram is some other business premises and has no relation to insured’s business activity. The police as per the final investigation report have come to a conclusion that the complaint is false and an element of risk is introduced in the premises, which has led to the fire accident.” The insurance company repudiated the claim under Ex. A2 mentioning the following reasons:
- The alleged fire accident on the said date is absolutely false and it is a make believe affair.
- The very fact that you preferred a complaint to the police 8 days after the alleged fire accident is the positive proof of the falsity of your claim.
- The record of police investigation clearly reveals that there was no such fire accident due to electric short circuit on 27.9.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. and the concerned police referred the case as false.
- Most of the material facts which are available with you, are not made available to us to find out the truth of your claim. Further there is a deliberate attempt to play a fraud on the insurance company to obtain maximum advantage to yourself and to cause maximum disadvantage to the insurance company.
- There was absolutely no such fire accident on 27.9.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. in the premises bearing D.No. 5/124, KPT Street, Dharmavaram, which is covered by the insurance policy issued in your favour.
- The building/premises bearing No. 4/99 (new No. 11/333) Thogata street, Dharmavaram where the alleged fire accident alleged to have taken place on 27.9.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. is not covered by the insurance policy issued in your favour.
- You have grossly violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
- You have not complied with the necessary requirements of the company as required under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
10) The complainant made claim to the Grievance Cell alleging that the shop was shifted to D.No. 4/99,. Thogota Street, Dharmavaram on 18.9.1999, and the said fact was informed to the insurance company. The insurance company in its reply Ex. B1 informed the complainant that “We have not received any information either from you or from your bankers about the shifting of the premises from one place to another place. In case, if we have received the information then we would have definitely incorporated the new premises in the policy invariably. Since it is a yearly policy and the policies are issued on regular basis at least your banker should have informed the same to us for our incorporating the new address in the policy, and therefore it is not possible for them to consider the said request.”
11) The case of the complainant is that in fact when it has shifted the premises from D.No. 4/90 to D.No. 4/99 it has informed the bank which in turn to the insurance company. For the mistake committed by the bank or the insurance company it should not be put to loss.
12) Obviously in order to prove that overdraft facility was taken from R2 bank wherein it is mentioned its business premises as D.No. 4/99, Thogota Street, Dharmavaram filed an application I.A. No. 421/2006 before the Dist. Forum to summon the loan agreement with the bank. Since it was not produced the Dist. Forum by its order dt. 18.1.2007 opined that State Bank of India had not produced the documents mentioned in the application though they were not destroyed. Therefore an adverse inference could be drawn against the SBI, Dharmavaram for non-submission of the documents mentioned in the application. With the said observation the petition was closed.
13) We may state that the very proposal form of the complainant submitted on 8.10.2001 under Ex. B6 the address was mentioned as ‘D.No. 5/124, K.P.T. Street, Dharmavaram. If really it had shifted its business premises on 18.9.1999 from D.No. 4/90 to D.No. 4/99 it could have mentioned as D.No. 4/99 while submitting the proposal form Ex. B6 which was submitted on 8.10.2001. Obviously it has been running its business in the premises bearing D.No. 4/90 but for which it could not have paid the taxes to Commercial Taxes Department mentioning its place of business at D.No. 4/90 vide Ex. B7. Obviously taking advantage of said overdraft application which is not available with the bank it has filed an application for causing production of the same. Assuming without admitting that the complainant intimated both the bank as well as the insurance company requesting change of address in the policy, the same could not be taken note of, since the request was not accepted. In fact when the complainant has examined his father as PW1 obviously who has been looking after his affairs admitted that “ I have shifted my business to D.No. 4/99 in the year May, 1999. I might have intimated to the SBI about the change of premises (business) to D.No. 4/99, but I cannot say whether intimation was given in writing or oral. It is true that the police had investigated with regard to fire accident on the basis of my complaint, and referred the case as false. I did not take any further steps after service of notice to me by the police.” The complainant could not establish that the fire accident took place to his shop located at D.No. 5/124, KPT street, Dhamavaram for which insurance proposal Ex. B6 was submitted and for which Ex. B5 policy was taken. His representation that he informed the change of address to the insurance company is not evidenced by any document. The complainant never insisted for issuance of a new policy effecting changes in the record as to the insurance premises. Simply because some other policies were taken on the premises situated at D. No. 4/99 would in no way prove that the shopkeeper’s policy was taken for the premises situated at D.No. 4/99 wherein the said accident had taken place. Since there was no fire accident to the premises bearing D.No. 5/124, KPT street, Dharmavaram for which policy was taken, the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim.
14) At the cost of repetition, we may state that there is no evidence to prove that the policy that was issued for the premises bearing D.No. 5/124, KPT street was changed to premises bearing D.No. 4/99, Thogata Street, Dharmavaram wherein the accident said to have taken place. We agree with the findings of the Dist. Forum. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
15) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 2,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 29 . 12. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
